Sanborn v. Neilson
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife, and was tried here at May term, 1827, upon the general issue. * It appeared in evidence, in the course of the trial, that the plaintiff and defendant, having agreed to meet on the 14th July, 1826, at the house of the plaintiff, for the purpose of adjusting the controversy which had arisen between them in relation to the intercourse of the defendant with the plaintiff’s wife, the defendant went to the…
Read the full summary
This was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife, and was tried here at May term, 1827, upon the general issue. * It appeared in evidence, in the course of the trial, that the plaintiff and defendant, having agreed to meet on the 14th July, 1826, at the house of the plaintiff, for the purpose of adjusting the controversy which had arisen between them in relation to the intercourse of the defendant with the plaintiff’s wife, the defendant went to the house at the time appointed, and the plaintiff and his wife and the defendant had a long conversation on the subject. And…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Richardson, C. J.
We shall, in the first place, consider whether the confessions of the defendant were, under the circumstances, competent testimony.
It seems to be a well settled rule, that an offer by a party, to pay a sum of money by way of compromise of an existing controversy, is not to. be used as evidence against him. But an admission of particular facts made during a treaty for a compromise may be given in evidence as a confession. 4 Pick. 374, Gerrish v. Sweetser; 2 ditto, 285, Marsh v. Gold; 1 Esp. N. P. C. 143, Waldridge v. Kennison; Peake’s…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bostick v. Smoot Sand and Gravel CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1957
- Wilt v. BirdIndiana Supreme Court · 1844
- Downer v. ButtonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853